I only ask because two weeks ago, as part of a long-running court case in which Binyam Mohamed, former Guantánamo prisoner and victim of “extraordinary rendition” and torture, is trying to persuade the British government to disclose evidence in its possession relating to his illegal imprisonment and torture, the government’s policy of resisting disclosure by whining that it would cause irreparable damage to the intelligence-sharing relationship between the US and the UK entered a critical new phase when a letter was delivered to the British government. Later revealed to Mohamed’s lawyers, it was marked as being the “Obama administration’s communication”, but had the names of the agency involved and the letter’s author blacked out.

The anonymous author stated that the position taken by the Obama administration was as follows: “If it is determined that [Her Majesty’s Government] is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in the future.”

The letter then referred to President Obama’s release of four Justice Department memos purporting to redefine torture and defend its use by the CIA, stating, “Neither in [those four] memoranda, nor in any statements of the administration accompanying their release, was reference made to the identity of any foreign government that might have assisted the United States. Given the declassification of the highly sensitive information contained in the memoranda, the fact that the president refrained from providing any information about foreign governments is indicative that the United States continues to preserve the secrecy of such information as critical to our national security.”

The letter continued: “The seven paragraphs at issue [a summary of the UK documents, compiled by the judges] are based upon classified information shared between our countries. Public disclosure of this information, reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the United Kingdom’s national security. Specifically, disclosure of this information may result in a constriction of the US-UK relationship, as well as UK relationships with other countries.”

The identity of the author was one of many questions that bounced around the High Court on Friday, as Mohamed’s lawyers sought once more to challenge the British government’s refusal to release the documents in its possession, but the most interesting little tidbit of information to emerge from these discussions was when one of Mohamed’s barristers referred to the author of the letter as “he,” and a ripple of knowing laughter followed from those who had been informed of the identity of the author, prompting speculation, of course, that “she” was none other than Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State.

Is it true? Will we ever know? Perhaps not, but if it is, Ms. Clinton and her team are at least more subtle than their predecessors. Last August, when this whole charade began, Stephen Mathias, a deputy to John Bellinger, wrote a much more terse — and pompous — letter from the State Department, declaring, “Ordering the disclosure of US intelligence information now would have only the marginal effects of serious and lasting damage to the US-UK intelligence sharing relationship, and thus the national security of the United Kingdom, and of aggressive and unprecedented intervention in the apparently functioning adjudicatory processes of a longtime ally of the United Kingdom, in contravention of well established principles of international comity.”

Sadly, neither the British nor the American governments are listening to the judges — Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones — who have never agreed that disclosure would be remotely damaging, and stated, many months ago, that they “did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials or officials of another State where the evidence was relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.”

6 Responses

Let’s hope that the current and recent items on Binyam Mohamed will soon come more fully to light – because surely suspicions will continue to be raised as to why US/British officials want to keep the lid closed tight. Surely when the truth is out, there is yet more top damning information to help close down not only GTMO but to be much more clear about any more such torture “black holes” anywhere. See Human Rights Watch today on Jordan, for example.
And support Senator Feingold’s probe on prolonged detention at a planned June Judiciary Committee. http://www.oneheartforpeace.blogspot.com

Perhaps this following submission should be way down the list of posts but since I found this on today’s afterdowningstreet home page and this further confirms Andy’s breaking story – I thought you’d appreciate seeing yet another. (there should have been – maybe still will be – many more such confirming pieces out in the media – mainstream and otherwise) By the way, Robert Naiman is doing some really good work with his Just Foreign Policy group and his free emailed reports are regular and well-researched.

The most damning credible allegation to emerge regarding the Bush Administration is arguably that Dick Cheney and other Bush Administration officials ordered the use of torture to produce false evidence of a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff at the State Department under Colin Powell, recently wrote,as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002 – well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion – its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.

Wilkerson cited the case of detainee Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, whose tortured testimony was crucial for building the case for war, and was cited in Powell’s speech to the UN.

Secretary Clinton is kind of “just the messenger” here, assuming she has anything to do with the message at all. Policy decisions are being made at the pleasure of the White House; we have no reason to think otherwise.

On the one hand, there is still a strong case to be made that at this still very early stage of his presidency, Barack Obama needs to be cautious and “pragmatic,” if for no other reason, to keep the military and intel apparatuses on his side, and under his control.

On the other hand, having taken so much effort to convince so many of us of his intentions to respect the rule of law and ridden that support into electoral success (at the expense of, among others, Mrs. Clinton), we are justly disappointed that the new management under President Obama seems to be adopting policies that are so hard to distinguish from the predecessor administration (which candidate Obama derided before becoming President Obama).

Just as it was in Bill Clinton’s time and now in Obama’s presidency, Hillary Rodenhurst Clinton,calls the shots and is the Big Boss of America. Just as Big Cheese Cheney controlled Young Bush,Hillary is in charge :^(